Full body scans of a man and woman. Given the current security situation, the federal government is considering measures such as these types of invasive scans to detect terror plots like that used by the underwear bomber. Unfortunately, these techniques still cannot detect explosives and other contraband hidden in bodily orifices. Photograph courtesy of Wired.

Imagine being the host of one of the most successful American morning shows on television. People love you. They love your personality, your charm, your wit. People look to you for advice, but they also look to you for some early-morning fun.

Now imagine that one day, on camera, you make an incredibly stupid remark poking fun at people different from you. The viewers don’t seem to notice, though. Maybe the remark was said too quickly. Or maybe they thought the joke was funny. Regardless, you go on with your show, the show ends, and you go on with your day.

One person remembers though. Me. Unfortunately, you made one deeply offensive, ignorant comment that deeply resonated with me.
The FOX & Friends morning show can certainly be entertaining. In fact, I know many people who watch this show every day. Anchors Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade make an engaging trio. Their appealing personalities make their show one of the most watched morning shows on television.

The anchors seem to make ridiculous remarks quite frequently, but this particular comment left me so dumbfounded that I stared at the television with a face that resembled the genie from Disney’s Aladdin.

Kilmeade discussed President Barack Obama’s response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed bomb attack when he referred to Abdulmutallab as the “would-be crotch bomber.” Doocy then shifted the discussion to a lighter tone, in which he lauded Kilmeade’s apparently original nickname. After a few laughs Carlson decided to make this stupid comment: “It’s impossible to say his last name anyway.”

Now this might just be a joke, but no one should be made fun of or judged based on his or her name. A name is someone’s identity, and it says nothing of a person’s personality or character.

These sorts of inconsiderate jokes tell viewers that it is acceptable to criticize someone based on his or her name.
What Abdulmutallab did was inexcusable and deservevs punishment—but the condemnation should rest solely on his actions rather than how complicated his last name is.

One of the reasons why this issue strikes me so much is that I don’t have the most ‘conventional’ name either.

People have unintentionally butchered my name many times, and many people still do. It’s not very hard; the name is pronounced exactly the way it is spelled. But if people accidentally pronounce my name incorrectly, I would not hold any grudge against them. Instead, I would respect the fact they tried to respect the name my parents gave me. But people too lazy to even try to pronounce my name correctly instantly lose my respect. It especially annoys me when this sort of laziness translates into third-rate jokes attacking minorities in our post-9/11 world.

Carlson never seems to be far from controversy. She once referred to the late Senator Ted Kennedy as a “hostile enemy… on the home front” for disagreeing with the Bush administration on congressional approval for troop surges in Iraq. On the issue of free speech, she has stated, “I am tolerant. I’m all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th.” Apparently, Carlson is a big fan of the United States Constitution, just not on Christmas Day.

I don’t mean to infringe upon Carlson’s free speech rights. I believe that everyone deserves the right to freedom of speech everyday. Carlson should be allowed to say what she wants, whenever she wants.

However, she must be aware of people who don’t agree with her views. Such criticisms can come in various forms, whether as an article or increased voter-turnout against conservative candidates.

I find it funny how many right-wing political analysts have discussions on why minorities tend to not vote for the more conservative candidates. None of the analysts realize that one of the reasons is that conservative political commentators, such as Carlson, straight-up attack minorities for no reason.

Why should I, a racial minority, vote for a candidate who does not even respect the vast diversity that makes this country unique?

Though I tend to agree with the social and economic viewpoints of more liberal candidates anyways, I know quite a few minorities who refuse to vote for Republican candidates. It is not because the voters do not agree with the conservative platform, but because the people representing the conservative platform are intolerant to people who are different from them.

Neither Carlson nor conservative analysts should be surprised.

No one should be judged based on his or her external features or what other people label him or her.

Though people have the right to make politically incorrect jokes, TV shows should use better judgment when addressing a national audience that includes minorities of all races, religions, and ethnicities.

magine seeing your friend’s head “repeatedly smashed into the floor.” Imagine your friend not being “offered any medical attention” after the incident. This is not a fictitious story, unfortunately. This seemingly unthinkable scenario recently occurred at Colby College, where student Liz Beltran witnessed campus security officers brutally assault two of her friends.

On April 12, 2009, after a party at the Colby Student Center, Ozzie Ramirez and his friend, Jacob Roundtree, were brutally attacked by Waterville policemen and campus security officers. Ramirez had allegedly interfered with the EMT’s attempts to aid an intoxicated student, and Roundtree had simply tried to approach security officers. After the incident, the two intoxicated students—both of whom are racial minorities—were arrested for assault and criminal trespass.

Now, you can say that interfering with the EMT’s efforts to help a student is a crime, and as such the students should be punished accordingly. But the brutal response from policemen and security officers was an obvious overreaction. Slamming Ramirez’s head against the floor and spraying mace at Roundtree—who already had at least two officers literally on top of him—are not effective means of controlling a situation. A short video is available online documenting the atrocities, if you have the stomach for it: http://www.truveo.com/Excessive-Force-Used-in-the-Unjustified-Arrest-of/id/541780657.

This case of police brutality is an utter embarrassment for both Colby College and the police, considering that campus security and the police force are institutions that are supposed to protect citizens, not mercilessly attack them. The irresponsible so-called “law-enforcers” completely misjudged a situation and used excessive force on defenseless students. Some witnesses stated that the student surrounded by the EMT’s was conscious and simply sleeping, which is a possible explanation for Ramirez’s actions. Regardless of his motivations, however, the vicious beating he endured is certainly out of proportion to any crime he may have committed.

Probably in an effort to devalue the severity of their brutality, Police Chief Joseph Massey tried to emphasize the fact that the victims were intoxicated. “I hope some of [the Colby students’] criticisms of police and security is not their way of taking the focus off the real issue, which is alcohol,” he said. However, the reality is that alcohol is a completely separate issue; both of the victims are above the drinking age, and whether or not they should have been drinking does not justify the actions taken by the police. Further, even if the students were so intoxicated that they could not control themselves, the officer’s actions would still have been gratuitous. Spraying mace at a student who is already immobilized is inarguably brutal.

The truth of the matter is that the police ruthlessly attacked two college students. Obviously, Officer Massey is trying to downplay this simple fact, as he sincerely stated on local television that the police officers at the scene “acted professionally.” Massey must be either completely oblivious to the reality of the situation or needs to learn the difference between law-enforcement and brutality.

Naturally, Colby students are outraged, so much so that a new campus organization, Colby United, was conceived. Two days after the incident there was a campus demonstration during which the witnesses of the incident gave their accounts of what happened. All who spoke seemed to be in disbelief; seeing a friend, or even a stranger, being attacked is certainly not something that anyone should have to witness. One witness even claimed that she had heard a policeman tell a security guard that he would have used a Taser stun gun on Roundtree had there not been so many people in the area at the time,. The President of the College, William D. Adams, addressed the students during the demonstration, but neither he nor any member of the college administration offered an apology on behalf of the officers. The administration has only revealed that there is an ambiguous “investigation” being conducted.

Brianna Lind, a student at Colby, explained her frustration with the administration’s lack of initiative and the speed at which the investigation is proceeding. She asked, “How many eye witnesses do you really need to convince others that the officers took inappropriate measures that night?” She explained how exasperating it is “to see how the media is one-dimensionally portraying Colby students as high on their horse, and rich and snobby people.” Despite the press’ portrayal, hundreds of Colby students are taking some sort of action; it’s pretty obvious that most students are heavily invested in making sure the officers are held accountable.

Whether or not the victims actually physically abused the EMTs and officers in the first place is also disputed. Susie Hufstader, the interim leader of Amnesty International at Colby, explains that “Several student witnesses have come forward to say that the actions taken by Security officers and the police…were not provoked by violence.”

The fact that the students were arrested for assault and criminal trespass lends an ironic twist to the whole situation. First, if there were any people “assaulted” that night, they were Ramirez and Roundtree. Second, as a Colby student mentioned in a campus forum on April 15, how were the Colby College students charged with criminal trespass at the Colby College Student Center? Does that mean that everyone else walking back to their dorm rooms that night should be charged with criminal trespass as well?

Some can argue that the security and police officers were just doing their jobs. However, if this were true, then the officers were not trained properly, and the administration and police department should take steps in retraining their officers and should discipline those involved in the incident.

After the attack, the campus security officers involved had their shifts changed. Also, each Colby security guard now has a recording device at all times; the officer can turn it on whenever necessary. If there are any future altercations, this plan can hopefully clarify any unclear situations.

We cannot let these attacks slide by. The vicious violence could have been racially motivated, considering that it seems all of the officers present were white while the victims were racial minorities. Though nothing can be done to reverse the events of April 12th, we can make sure that these injustices are not repeated. Student activism is burgeoning on the Colby campus, and as this story gets more attention, more people want answers. The Colby administration and Waterville Police department must apologize for this particular incident. These egregious acts should remind us that police brutality on college campuses can happen, even somewhere as remote as Waterville, within the “Colby bubble.” Just because a college environment is relatively safe does not mean that standards should be relaxed. A full investigation should be conducted rapidly to ensure that these brutal actions are not repeated, both at Colby and at other college campuses.

he contentious debate over the ethics of the death penalty hit close to home when the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted’3-174 to abolish capital punishment on March 25. The bill’s fate is now in the hands of the State Senate. However, Governor John Lynch has already stated his opposition to the measure, threatening a veto. “I believe there are some crimes that are so heinous, the death penalty is warranted. If legislation repealing the death penalty were to reach my desk I would veto it,” he explained.

This statement appears to echo the sentiments of many Americans. According to a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Americans support the death penalty for people convicted of murder. However, there are many problems with the current legal system, including reports of bias and narrowly averted executions of innocent people in light of new evidence. Quite possibly the biggest issue is racial bias. A very high proportion of death row inmates are minorities, leading many to accuse the current system of discrimination against minorities.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), racial minorities account for 43% of executions since’76. Currently, 55% of people on death row are minorities. These statistics are appalling, considering that 26% of the American populace consists of racial minorities. Are we really to believe that minorities commit more than twice as many murders deserving of the death penalty than white people do? “Furthermore,” the ACLU explains, “as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims.” Whether or not people like to admit it, racial prejudice is obviously prevalent in our legal system.

Some argue these statistics can be explained away by the overall higher crime rates among minority populations. But even if this were true, it obviously speaks to an ominous gap between the socioeconomic conditions of whites and minorities. Even if we make the unwarranted assumption that the system is flawless and always correctly determines guilt or innocence, what does the disproportionately high percentage of black people on death row say about the gap between the average living conditions of whites and minorities? A disproportionate number of black people live in poverty, suffering from reduced access to quality education, healthcare, and other important services. Living in such impoverished and undeveloped urban areas forces people to endure more difficult life experiences, eventually leading to more controversial decisions. So yes, minorities might be more likely to commit crimes, but that could be due to the domestic oppression they face on a daily basis. In addition, no geneticist has ever found a “Racial Minority Crime Gene,” so biologically, this assertion can’t be possible either. The outrageous disparity in how capital punishment is meted out should force us to look at the living conditions that lead to future criminal actions, rather than endlessly debating the abstract ethics of of the death penalty.

Of course, race is not the only problem with capital punishment. Many times, people have been incorrectly sentenced to death. Since just 2003, twenty-one people on death row have had their convictions overturned. In addition to racial profiling, this can also be due to inadequate legal representation, an unfair trial, and evidence tampering. The death penalty also costs much more than a lifetime prison sentence without parole, due to the costly, endless appeals preceding an execution.

Governor Lynch should consider all of these factors when evaluating the death penalty. He must realize the death penalty is an unjust way of punishing criminals. He cannot make the same mistake former Governor Jeanne Shaheen made in 2000 when she vetoed legislation that would have abolished the death penalty. If Governor Lynch decides to veto this legislation, he would be perpetuating an unjust, biased, ineffective system; the same mistake should not be made twice.

The death penalty’s inherent prejudice is further exemplified by the case of Michael Addison. On October 16, 2006, Addison, a black man from Boston, killed Michael Briggs, a Manchester police officer. On December 22, 2008, the judge sentenced Addison to death. Yet it’s important to realize that if Addison weren’t sentenced to death Briggs and his work as a police officer would not be any less appreciated or respected.

Addison was raised in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston, which is one of the most violent and turbulent areas of the city. His father abandoned him, and his mother was an alcoholic. This does not excuse him from his crime, but the correlation between inequitable living situations and crime cannot be ignored. Had he been raised in a more affluent neighborhood with more caring parents, this event might have been avoided. Or, had there been some social program that helped troubled individuals, he might have been adequately educated about making correct decisions. Aren’t these better options than blindly sticking needles in the arms of those who commit these crimes? The extraordinarily high murder rate in the United States, compared to that of the vast majority of developed countries, shows the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. The world is not so black and white, right and wrong, and addressing the conditions that lead to violent crimes is a much more effective and humane strategy than execution.

We cannot go back in time and change crimes that have already been committed, but we can initiate change for the future instead of continuing in our current path. Politicians need to increase funding for social programs to address the omnipresent gap between the rich and the poor, between minorities and white Americans. If action is not taken, more generations will be lost, failed by their schools, their healthcare system, and ultimately, their government. The situation isn’t hopeless, though: we need to pressure Governor Lynch to abolish the death penalty and to promote some equity in our legal system.

What Governor Lynch needs to realize is that the real “heinous” crime is refusing to abolish the death penalty. An outdated practice such as the death penalty must be reexamined; the old adage “an eye for an eye” fails to reflect the realities of today’s social climate and ultimately hinders any sort of progress. So if the State Senate passes the bill, Governor Lynch should do the right thing: obey the will of the people, and sign the bill into law.

]]> http://dartmouthfreepress.com/2009/04/10/don039t-veto-life/feed/ 0 http://dartmouthfreepress.com/2009/02/27/hope-change-and-health-care/ http://dartmouthfreepress.com/2009/02/27/hope-change-and-health-care/#comments Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Bishnu K. Panigrahi http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thepress/?p=1741

ccording to the California Health Care Foundation, the U.S. spends 4.3 times more money on healthcare than on national defense. And yet, approximately 44 million Americans are without health insurance. For every dollar we spend to defend ourselves from foreign threats, we spend over four dollars on domestic threats—that is, the threat of illness and injury. And yet, the massive amount of money spent on keeping Americans healthy isn’t enough to help us all. We remain a nation where millions of citizens are uninsured, unprotected, and utterly exposed.

However, these uninsured have been given a reason to hope for change: President Barack Obama promises “quality” and “affordable” healthcare coverage for all. But what will all this hope and this change bring us? Will everyone eventually receive legitimate healthcare?

Excuse me for being pessimistic, but let’s face it: probably not. In order for healthcare reform to occur, special interests must be kept far away from the President’s closest advisors, especially those planning to oversee the massive plan to overhaul America’s healthcare system. Obama told us he would do this. But the President lied. Look no further than two of his most significant appointments: Tom Daschle and Eric Holder.

Not too long after his election, Obama designated Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader, Secretary of Human and Health Services. Unfortunately for Daschle, the former congressional leader failed to accurately report and pay his income taxes (a $146,000 “oversight!”). Fortunately for the American people, his name was withdrawn from consideration. Why fortunate? Besides the private limousine he “forgot” to pay taxes on, his ties to the big-business healthcare industry juggernauts are astounding. After he lost his senatorial re-election bid in 2004, he worked for law firm Alston and Bird LLP as a “special policy advisor”—a fancy name for a lobbyist, coined because the law forbids a United States Senator from being a lobbyist for one year after leaving the Senate. According to Bloomberg News, Daschle helped the firm make $5.8 million between January and September of 2008; 60 percent of that $5.8 million came from clients of the healthcare industry. In addition, according to Daschle’s financial disclosure statement, the American Health Insurance Plans (a trade organization that represents health insurers) paid Daschle more than $390,000 to make speeches on its behalf. To top it all off, his wife, Linda, lobbied for Schering-Plough—one of the most disreputable drug companies around—to try to extend the company’s patent on Claritin. The drug’s original price has recently and inexplicably increased by more that 50 percent, four times the rate of inflation.

Though Daschle’s gone, Obama has appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder, the former Deputy Attorney General under the Clinton administration, worked for Covington and Burling, a very influential law firm and lobbying shop. His lobbying connections extend into the health care industry, where Holder represented Merck—yet another cheating drug company—in a sordid Medicaid over-billing case. Merck gave free Vioxx and Zocor pills to doctors at a very low cost in order to treat low-income patients. The catch? These patients were deliberately given additional doses of medicine so they would become addicted. Accordingly, after the patients left the hospital, they continued to take the drug at the expense of the Medicaid system. Holder helped Merck get out easy; the company had to pay $650 million in the resulting settlement, a miniscule amount considering the tremendous profits they made from selling those drugs.

Now, you may ask: why do these questionable appointments matter? Well, they tell us either of two things:

1. Though Obama intends to “change” the healthcare system, he is forced to appoint these special-interest advocates to maintain a bipartisan image, or

2. Obama seriously believes that they will break off from their previous ties to construct an affordable and efficient healthcare system.

I highly doubt the latter. Remember when the audacious Hillary Clinton decided to challenge the drug company juggernauts as the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform? The companies launched massive propaganda campaigns against her; and now, according to the New York Times, Clinton (now Secretary of State) is one of the top recipients of donations from the healthcare industry—although most of those funds were handed over to her during her years in the Senate. Chances are that if Daschle and Holder decided to turn their backs on their previous employers, similar campaigns would be launched against any new initiative for national healthcare, and the entire effort would likely amount to nothing.

That leaves us with the first option: that Obama had to appoint these high-profile political figures to please not only Democrats, but Republicans as well. Isn’t it odd that Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, co-author of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which promoted drug-company deregulation, called Daschle a “great choice” for the position? Let’s not forget about the pressure that Democrats have placed on the new Obama administration. Both Daschle and Holder represent stagnant politics instead of the politics of “change.” Both are connected to the Clintons, arguably the most influential duo in American politics.

It will be interesting to see how Barack Obama tackles the healthcare issue. According to the New York Times, Obama’s top choice to replace Daschle is Kathleen Sebelius, a moderate Democrat from a mostly Republican state. Will change occur? I’m not sure. But hopefully the grassroots support Obama garnered during his campaign will pressure his administration enough to ensure the development of an effective universal healthcare system, something America desperately needs.

]]> http://dartmouthfreepress.com/2009/02/27/hope-change-and-health-care/feed/ 0 http://dartmouthfreepress.com/2009/01/16/leftist-lit-31/ http://dartmouthfreepress.com/2009/01/16/leftist-lit-31/#comments Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0000 Bishnu K. Panigrahi http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thepress/?p=1694

emocratic Senator Harry Reid once accused Ralph Nader of “not respecting [America’s electoral] process.” To what process was Senator Reid referring? The one that crowns a winner even when the candidate doesn’t win the popular vote? The one that sets unrealistic requirements for third-party debate participation, even when the candidate is on enough ballots to theoretically win the election? The one that prioritizes corporate interests over the public’s needs?

These are just some of the reasons why Nader, one of the most influential consumer advocates of the 20th century, chose to run for office of President of the United States in 2000. In his book, Crashing the Party, he eloquently explains how he was the only candidate in the 2000 election to whole-heartedly promote a progressive agenda, and how he did not “steal” the election from Al Gore—one of the most polarizing politicians at the time.

As we all know, on the 2000 election trail, the Democrats launched unethical smear campaigns against Nader to deter voters from voting for him, instead of promoting their own political agenda and trying to appeal to liberal constituencies with intelligent ideas. The book points out that Nader offered to drop out of the race if the Democrats committed themselves to more progressive ideals, such as pledging to end corporate welfare, to increase real wages, or to mandate publicly financed elections. It’s insights like this that add to Crashing the Party’s excellence.

Unfortunately, the book does have the tendency to irritate readers when Nader launches descriptions of the numerous rallies and protests he attended during the campaign trail. It gets a little redundant. However, this repetition is essential because it helps emphasize his determination to represent “average Americans” in spite of adversity from the media and the corporate-dominated Democratic and Republican parties.

On the other hand, while Nader’s exposÉ of Gore’s record is extremely detailed, the facts never seem boring. From refusing to increase fuel efficiency standards to helping to pass NAFTA, Gore’s own actions proved that his appealing rhetoric and convenient photo-ops didn’t coincide with his dismal record as a United States representative, a senator and the vice-president. Nader explains that, in spite of Gore’s terrible record, many major unions and environmental protection groups endorsed him due to fear of losing the presidency to George Bush. It’s upsetting to read that even though the League of Conservation Voters embarrassed Gore with horrendous environmental work ratings—60% and 73% while in the House and Senate, respectively—the environmental advocacy group still supported Gore in the election.

This book is a great read for anybody, whether or not you agree with Nader’s political views. In the end, one theme emerges as important regardless of political ideology: civic responsibility. Nader stresses that everyone should strive to be the most active citizen he or she can possibly be. Every individual has a duty to voice his or her concerns to local and national politicians on a regular basis, as strong grassroots movements speak louder than all of the greed and corruption that mar today’s politics. People need to understand that America’s government and corporations were created to serve the people, not control their lives.

Whether you want a fairer electoral process or healthcare for every American, everyone—concerned citizens or desperate politicians—should read this book. If Senator Reid, now the Senate Majority Leader, did so, perhaps he could learn a thing or two about America’s electoral process.

]]> http://dartmouthfreepress.com/2009/01/16/leftist-lit-31/feed/ 0